Comment by bboygravity | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bboygravity | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Rule #1 on the internet: the more a website screams something, the less it's true.

Examples:

"Our mission is to organize the world's information." (proceeds to organize the world's commercial brands and spam people based on what they do online)

"We value freedom of speech." (proceed to literally ban the president, wrong opinions and alternative apps like Parler)

"We value your privacy." (Every big"tech"/cloud company ever that sells your data and has an automated system in place to pass all data on to the NSA, authorities and anybody willing to buy data)

"Download now" (not actually now, but after you get our download manager adware/cryptolocker)

"Download full functional version for free now" (actually a limited trial that you get to use after you dump personal info)

"Free trial, unlimited music downloads, cancel any time" (proceed to charge your credit card even though you cancelled the limited DRM download service on time. I'm looking at you Amazon Music)

That phenomenon is called counter-signaling, which I first ran into listening to Dan Jurafsky making the point that if a menu uses the word "fresh", its a low-brow restaurant. A high-brow restaurant would never use the word "fresh" -- the freshness is implicit in the other signals.

https://kelley.iu.edu/riharbau/cs-randfinal.pdf

"People of average education show off the studied regularity of their script, but the well educated often scribble illegibly. Mediocre students answer a teacher’s easy questions, but the best students are embarrassed to prove their knowledge of trivial points. Acquaintances show their good intentions by politely ignoring one’s flaws, while close friends show intimacy by teasingly highlighting them. People of moderate ability seek formal credentials to impress employers and society, but the talented often downplay their credentials even if they have bothered to obtain them. A person of average reputation defensively refutes accusations against his character, while a highly respected person finds it demeaning to dignify accusations with a response."

This is why I love HN. Learnt something new again today :)

Discovered this very early in life when I found out that the more adults tell kids that something is "fun", the less it's true. If it really was fun, it would be obvious and wouldn't need to be said ;)

Ah yes I always see cheap food packaging that says “gourmet” or some other obviously unfitting epithet. Words printed on packaging are free and somehow folks who market cheap foods think stuff like that helps.

You imply that a website that does not mention tree planting at all, plants the most trees. Interesting.

What would you recommend people to put on their website when they genuinely would want to provide a search engine that plants trees?

Do you imply matrix.org being a protocol for closed islands for insecure, centralized silence instead of a protocol for an open network for secure, decentralized communication?

Please start finding actual arguments instead of spreading superficial unfounded commentary.

>> What would you recommend people to put on their website when they genuinely would want to provide a search engine that plants trees?

Everything except lies. Simple.

PS: I think the idea of a search engine like that is great (assuming the tree planting is done in a responsible way without destroy ecosystems). But I don't think implying to be privacy friendly when you're not really is great.

> You imply that a website that does not mention tree planting at all, plants the most trees. Interesting.

They actually don't imply that but the exact opposite, which is "the website that talks the most about tree planting, plants the least". The way you phrase it reverses that logical implication, which is not what they said.

For context, this isn't true either. Ecosia does plant a lot of trees. https://youtu.be/z1AVgbI_1r0

If they plant the least, someone else should plant the most.

if those people wanted to plant trees, they would. when they announce that's what they're doing, it's not about the trees anymore, but about communication and branding. and communication and branding is poised with lies and misleading.

Pragmatically, a regular full audit by an external entity might produce interesting results. Who is their auditor? That might be a pertinent detail to provide.

I'm looking for the plant tree apache module.

Absolutely agree. @bbobgravity is trying to create a sort of heuristic rule that simply does not work.

I’ve always found the “we value your privacy” an interesting _admission_. They definitely put a _value_ on your privacy by selling it! They exactly what other are willing to pay for it.

Funny. Big corporations also value your privacy at a value measured by their stock price.

But to be honest Parler is also going into this basket, they also overstate freedom of speech, which is in the long run practically impossible for any centralized service especially for those operated in the USA.

I don’t believe any particular company cares about anything other than maximizing their profit.

Rights = Duties

You lose your freedom of assembly if you use it to form mobs with the objective of perpetrating crimes.

You lose your freedom of speech if you use it to form unlawful assemblies with the objective of perpetrating crimes.

Trump was banned because he sent a mob of Q-indoctrinated lunatics to the Capitol with the likely objective of kidnapping senators and staging a coup (they were photographed carrying zip-tie handcuffs in Senate chambers).

It was a good idea to ban Trump, let's keep it that way. He rarely said anything of value anyways, only reality show trash talk, hate speech and pseudoscience.

How did he send a mob into the Capitol building?

Here you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_St...

I don't think sending a one liner and a link to Wikipedia is keeping in good spirit with this forum.

> “ We value freedom of speech." (proceed to literally ban the president, wrong opinions and alternative apps like Parler)”

Saying this is not open-mindedness or support for free speech.

The president and Parler both have acted as direct, unequivocal instruments of fomenting and directing violence, especially with racist and fascist nature.

Banning them from any platforms is in no way connected to free speech whatsoever. President Trump’s Twitter account and Free Speech are two completely disconnected, unrelated concepts.

It requires fascism-sympathizing and racism-sympathizing to even suggest otherwise.

At this point, anything of the vein like, “Banning Trump from Twitter is unfair censorship” or “Banning Parler from app stores is unfair censorship” is just hate speech disguised as if it’s an attempt to uphold freedom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com